DOCSLIB.ORG

Kopenui Stream Reservoir Assessment of Ecological Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kopenui Stream Reservoir Assessment of Ecological Effects Kopenui Stream Reservoir Assessment of Ecological Effects 24 April 2020 puhoistour.co.nz PUHOI STOUR LIMITED LYSAGHT BUILDING | 101 PAKENHAM STREET AUCKLAND 1010 Kopenui Stream Reservoir: Assessment of Ecological Effects Martin Neale, Puhoi Stour Limited Alicia Wong, Tonkin & Taylor Sam Heggie-Grace, Tonkin & Taylor Mike Lake, Tonkin & Taylor Justine Quinn, Tonkin & Taylor Prepared for Northland Regional Council by Puhoi Stour Ltd (Project 2019/026) and Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (Job number 1012828). This work was undertaken by Puhoi Stour Limited in accordance with a Short Form Agreement dated 30 August 2019. Tonkin and Taylor were engaged in accordance with a Letter of Engagement dated 11 March 2020 Document History PSL Report Number 2020/02 Version Date Reviewed by Draft for internal T&T review 25 March 2020 Justine Quinn First Draft for PSL review 28 March 2020 Martin Neale Second draft for internal T&T review 1 April 2020 Justine Quinn Trevor Connelly Second Draft for PSL review 1 April 2020 Martin Neale Draft for client review 2 April 2020 Martell Letica Final 8 April 2020 Martin Neale Justine Quinn Josh Markham PUHOI STOUR | PAGE 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. Site description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Desktop assessment .................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Freshwater values assessment .................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Stream classifications .......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.3 Fish ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.4 Stream ecological valuation ................................................................................................................................. 8 3.3 Terrestrial values assessment .................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Ecosystem types ................................................................................................................................................ 10 3.3.2 Bats .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.3 Birds ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.4 Herpetofauna ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.5 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Assessment of effects................................................................................................................................................. 11 4. Freshwater ecological assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Stream classification and values ................................................................................................................................ 11 4.1.1 Proposed reservoir location ............................................................................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Downstream of proposed reservoir .................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.3 Proposed water take site ................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Assessment of ecological effects - freshwater ............................................................................................................ 15 4.2.1 Sedimentation during construction ..................................................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Injury or mortality of freshwater fauna ................................................................................................................ 15 4.2.3 Fish passage ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.4 Permanent modification of stream habitat .......................................................................................................... 17 4.2.5 Downstream water quality effects ...................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.6 Downstream habitat effects ............................................................................................................................... 19 5. Terrestrial and wetland ecological assessment ................................................................................................................... 20 5.1 Terrestrial flora............................................................................................................................................................ 20 5.1.1 Podocarp-broadleaf forest ................................................................................................................................. 20 5.1.2 Old-growth forest fragments .............................................................................................................................. 20 5.1.3 Secondary broadleaved shrub ........................................................................................................................... 21 5.1.4 Swamp forest ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.1.5 Exotic vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 PUHOI STOUR | PAGE 3 5.1.6 Raupō reedland .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.1.7 Carex wetland .................................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1.8 Exotic dominated wet areas ....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1.9 Threatened plant species ........................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Terrestrial fauna.......................................................................................................................................................... 23 5.2.1 Bats .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 5.2.2 Avifauna ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 5.2.3 Herpetofauna ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.2.4 Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.3 Assessment of ecological effects - terrestrial.............................................................................................................. 25 5.3.1 Vegetation effects .............................................................................................................................................. 25 5.3.2 Fauna effects ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 5.3.3 Fauna effects management ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction Methods Results
    Papers and Proceedings Royal Society ofTasmania, Volume 1999 103 THE CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS OF THE VEGETATION AND FLORA OF THE HUNTINGFIELD AREA, SOUTHERN TASMANIA by J.B. Kirkpatrick (with two tables, four text-figures and one appendix) KIRKPATRICK, J.B., 1999 (31:x): The characteristics and management problems of the vegetation and flora of the Huntingfield area, southern Tasmania. Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasm. 133(1): 103-113. ISSN 0080-4703. School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University ofTasmania, GPO Box 252-78, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001. The Huntingfield area has a varied vegetation, including substantial areas ofEucalyptus amygdalina heathy woodland, heath, buttongrass moorland and E. amygdalina shrubbyforest, with smaller areas ofwetland, grassland and E. ovata shrubbyforest. Six floristic communities are described for the area. Two hundred and one native vascular plant taxa, 26 moss species and ten liverworts are known from the area, which is particularly rich in orchids, two ofwhich are rare in Tasmania. Four other plant species are known to be rare and/or unreserved inTasmania. Sixty-four exotic plantspecies have been observed in the area, most ofwhich do not threaten the native biodiversity. However, a group offire-adapted shrubs are potentially serious invaders. Management problems in the area include the maintenance ofopen areas, weed invasion, pathogen invasion, introduced animals, fire, mechanised recreation, drainage from houses and roads, rubbish dumping and the gathering offirewood, sand and plants. Key Words: flora, forest, heath, Huntingfield, management, Tasmania, vegetation, wetland, woodland. INTRODUCTION species with the most cover in the shrub stratum (dominant species) was noted. If another species had more than half The Huntingfield Estate, approximately 400 ha of forest, the cover ofthe dominant one it was noted as a codominant.
    [Show full text]
  • Adansonia 2020  42  18 Directeur De La Publication / Publication Director: Bruno David Président Du Muséum National D’Histoire Naturelle
    adansonia 2020 42 18 DIRECTEUR DE LA PUBLICATION / PUBLICATION DIRECTOR: Bruno David Président du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle RÉDACTEUR EN CHEF / EDITOR-IN-CHIEF : Thierry Deroin RÉDACTEURS / EDITORS : Porter P. Lowry II ; Zachary S. Rogers ASSISTANT DE RÉDACTION / ASSISTANT EDITOR : Emmanuel Côtez ([email protected]) MISE EN PAGE / PAGE LAYOUT : Emmanuel Côtez COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE / SCIENTIFIC BOARD : P. Baas (Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Wageningen) F. Blasco (CNRS, Toulouse) M. W. Callmander (Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève) J. A. Doyle (University of California, Davis) P. K. Endress (Institute of Systematic Botany, Zürich) P. Feldmann (Cirad, Montpellier) L. Gautier (Conservatoire et Jardins botaniques de la Ville de Genève) F. Ghahremaninejad (Kharazmi University, Téhéran) K. Iwatsuki (Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo) K. Kubitzki (Institut für Allgemeine Botanik, Hamburg) J.-Y. Lesouef (Conservatoire botanique de Brest) P. Morat (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris) J. Munzinger (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier) S. E. Rakotoarisoa (Millenium Seed Bank, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Madagascar Conservation Centre, Antananarivo) É. A. Rakotobe (Centre d’Applications des Recherches pharmaceutiques, Antananarivo) P. H. Raven (Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis) G. Tohmé (Conseil national de la Recherche scientifique Liban, Beyrouth) J. G. West (Australian National Herbarium, Canberra) J. R. Wood (Oxford) COUVERTURE / COVER : Réalisée à partir des Figures de
    [Show full text]
  • The Fern Family Blechnaceae: Old and New
    ANDRÉ LUÍS DE GASPER THE FERN FAMILY BLECHNACEAE: OLD AND NEW GENERA RE-EVALUATED, USING MOLECULAR DATA Tese apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal do Departamento de Botânica do Instituto de Ciências Biológicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, como requisito parcial à obtenção do título de Doutor em Biologia Vegetal. Área de Concentração Taxonomia vegetal BELO HORIZONTE – MG 2016 ANDRÉ LUÍS DE GASPER THE FERN FAMILY BLECHNACEAE: OLD AND NEW GENERA RE-EVALUATED, USING MOLECULAR DATA Tese apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal do Departamento de Botânica do Instituto de Ciências Biológicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, como requisito parcial à obtenção do título de Doutor em Biologia Vegetal. Área de Concentração Taxonomia Vegetal Orientador: Prof. Dr. Alexandre Salino Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Coorientador: Prof. Dr. Vinícius Antonio de Oliveira Dittrich Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora BELO HORIZONTE – MG 2016 Gasper, André Luís. 043 Thefern family blechnaceae : old and new genera re- evaluated, using molecular data [manuscrito] / André Luís Gasper. – 2016. 160 f. : il. ; 29,5 cm. Orientador: Alexandre Salino. Co-orientador: Vinícius Antonio de Oliveira Dittrich. Tese (doutorado) – Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento de Botânica. 1. Filogenia - Teses. 2. Samambaia – Teses. 3. RbcL. 4. Rps4. 5. Trnl. 5. TrnF. 6. Biologia vegetal - Teses. I. Salino, Alexandre. II. Dittrich, Vinícius Antônio de Oliveira. III. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Departamento de Botânica. IV. Título. À Sabrina, meus pais e a vida, que não se contém! À Lucia Sevegnani, que não pode ver esta obra concluída, mas que sempre foi motivo de inspiração.
    [Show full text]
  • NLM Leptospermum Lanigerum – Melaleuca Squarrosa Swamp Forest
    Vegetation Condition Benchmarks version 3 Non-Eucalypt Forest and Woodland NLM Leptospermum lanigerum – Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest Community Description: Leptospermum lanigerum – Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forests dominated by Leptospermum lanigerum and/or Melaleuca squarrosa are common in the north-west and west and occur occasionally in the north-east and east where L. lanigerum usually predominates. There are also extensive tracts on alluvial flats of the major south-west rivers. The forests are dominated by various mixtures of L. lanigerum and M. squarrosa but with varying lesser amounts of various species of Acacia and rainforest species also present. Trees are usually > 8 m in height. Benchmarks: Length Component Cover % Height (m) DBH (cm) #/ha (m)/0.1 ha Canopy 70% - - - Large Trees - 10 25 800 Organic Litter 40% - Logs ≥ 10 - 20 Large Logs ≥ 12.5 Recruitment Episodic Understorey Life Forms LF code # Spp Cover % Tree or large shrub T 4 20 Medium shrub/small shrub S 3 15 Herbs and orchids H 5 5 Grass G 1 1 Large sedge/rush/sagg/lily LSR 1 1 Medium to small sedge/rush/sagg/lily MSR 2 1 Ground fern GF 2 5 Tree fern TF 1 5 Scrambler/Climber/Epiphytes SCE 2 5 Mosses and Lichens ML 1 20 Total 10 22 Last reviewed – 5 July 2016 Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment http://www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/tasveg NLM Leptospermum lanigerum – Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest Species lists: Canopy Tree Species Common Name Notes Leptospermum lanigerum woolly teatree Melaleuca
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Ecology of the Montagu River Catchment
    Aquatic Ecology of the Montagu River Catchment A Report Forming Part of the Requirements for State of Rivers Reporting David Horner Water Assessment and Planning Branch Water Resources Division DPIWE. December, 2003 State of Rivers Aquatic Ecology of the Montagu Catchment Copyright Notice: Material contained in the report provided is subject to Australian copyright law. Other than in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 of the Commonwealth Parliament, no part of this report may, in any form or by any means, be reproduced, transmitted or used. This report cannot be redistributed for any commercial purpose whatsoever, or distributed to a third party for such purpose, without prior written permission being sought from the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, on behalf of the Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania. Disclaimer: Whilst DPIWE has made every attempt to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information and data provided, it is the responsibility of the data user to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of information provided. The Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, its employees and agents, and the Crown in the Right of the State of Tasmania do not accept any liability for any damage caused by, or economic loss arising from, reliance on this information. Preferred Citation: DPIWE (2003). State of the River Report for the Montagu River Catchment. Water Assessment and Planning Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Technical Report No. WAP 03/09 ISSN: 1449-5996 The Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment The Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment provides leadership in the sustainable management and development of Tasmania’s resources.
    [Show full text]
  • ACT, Australian Capital Territory
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOACTIVE LEPTOSPERMUM for GIPPSLAND Rob Waddell Grand Ridge Propagation WHO ARE WE?
    BIOACTIVE LEPTOSPERMUM FOR GIPPSLAND Rob Waddell Grand Ridge Propagation WHO ARE WE? • Grand Ridge Propagation nursery • Based at Seaview, south of Warragul • We have sheep, cattle, a nursery and more recently a bee hive (or 2) • 2017 production about 120,000 native seedlings, planting about 30,000 Which species have potential for Gippsland? Leptospermum scoparium (Manuka) • Grows 3-5m • Flowers November/December • Seed sourced from New Zealand’s North and South islands from wild populations producing MGO 300 to 500 honey Leptospermum polygalifolium ssp polygalifolium (Jelly Bush) • Grows 3-7m • Flowers November/December • Seed sourced from southern NSW Leptospermum lanigerum (Woolly tea tree) • Grows 3-7m • Flowers October/November • Seed sourced locally (test results to come) • Tolerates extremely wet and boggy conditions Leptospermum continentale (Prickly tea tree) • Grows 3-5m • Flowers January/February • Seed sourced locally (test results to come) Some of the key factors for success • Level of genetic bioactivity of the seedlings • Nectar yield-massive flower production • Plant density • Principal nectar source for foraging bees Planting densities for Gippsland What is your end goal? • WINDBREAKS • PLANTATIONS • Tea tree only plant 2m apart • Grazing sheep or slashing grass • Mix species winbreaks (tea tree, plant 5 to 6m apart or 400 to eucalypts etc) plant 3m apart 300 plants/ha • Full coverage of site plant 2 to 3m apart or 2500 to 1150 plants/ha HONEY! • Takes 12 to 18 months to reach peak bioactivity • Can be difficult to extract, could have implications for flow hives? • Potential yields up to 40kg/hive with 1 to 4 hives/ha (New Zealand data) Other considerations • Flowering takes 3 to 4 years from planting depending on site • Ensure species is suitable for the site • Soil types, waterlogging, coastal exposure • Aspect • Shading QUESTIONS?.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Kanuka and Manuka Establishment in Grassland Constrained by Mycorrhizal Abundance?
    172 AvailableNew on-lineZealand at: Journal http://www.newzealandecology.org/nzje/ of Ecology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2013 Is kanuka and manuka establishment in grassland constrained by mycorrhizal abundance? Murray Davis1*, Ian A. Dickie2, Thomas Paul3 and Fiona Carswell2 1Scion, PO Box 29237, Christchurch 8540, New Zealand 2Landcare Research, PO Box 69040, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand 3Scion, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua 3046, New Zealand *Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Published online: 14 May 2013 Abstract: Two indigenous small tree and shrub species, kanuka (Kunzea ericoides) and manuka (Leptospermum scoparium), have potential as reforestation species in New Zealand as they are forest pioneer species that can invade grassland naturally from present seed sources. The aim of this study was to determine if establishment of kanuka and manuka from seed in grassland distant from stands of these species might be constrained by lack of appropriate mycorrhizal fungi. Both species were grown in an unsterilised grassland soil from a low- productivity montane site assumed to be devoid of appropriate mycorrhizal fungi and inoculated with sterilised or unsterilised O-horizon or mineral soil from beneath three kanuka and three manuka communities expected to contain such fungi. Inoculation with unsterilised O-horizon soil improved kanuka biomass by 36–92%, depending on the source of the inoculant. Inoculation did not improve manuka biomass. No ectomycorrhizal infection was observed on either kanuka or manuka in samples examined under binocular microscope. The biomass response by kanuka to inoculation may be due to introduction of more effective arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from kanuka communities or possibly to the introduction of soil microorganisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Epilist 1.0: a Global Checklist of Vascular Epiphytes
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2021 EpiList 1.0: a global checklist of vascular epiphytes Zotz, Gerhard ; Weigelt, Patrick ; Kessler, Michael ; Kreft, Holger ; Taylor, Amanda Abstract: Epiphytes make up roughly 10% of all vascular plant species globally and play important functional roles, especially in tropical forests. However, to date, there is no comprehensive list of vas- cular epiphyte species. Here, we present EpiList 1.0, the first global list of vascular epiphytes based on standardized definitions and taxonomy. We include obligate epiphytes, facultative epiphytes, and hemiepiphytes, as the latter share the vulnerable epiphytic stage as juveniles. Based on 978 references, the checklist includes >31,000 species of 79 plant families. Species names were standardized against World Flora Online for seed plants and against the World Ferns database for lycophytes and ferns. In cases of species missing from these databases, we used other databases (mostly World Checklist of Selected Plant Families). For all species, author names and IDs for World Flora Online entries are provided to facilitate the alignment with other plant databases, and to avoid ambiguities. EpiList 1.0 will be a rich source for synthetic studies in ecology, biogeography, and evolutionary biology as it offers, for the first time, a species‐level overview over all currently known vascular epiphytes. At the same time, the list represents work in progress: species descriptions of epiphytic taxa are ongoing and published life form information in floristic inventories and trait and distribution databases is often incomplete and sometimes evenwrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Alsip Home and Nursery Helene Strybing Tea-Tree
    Helene Strybing Tea-Tree* Leptospermum scoparium 'Helene Strybing' Height: 10 feet Spread: 10 feet Sunlight: Hardiness Zone: 9 Other Names: Manuka, New Zealand Tea-Tree Description: Pretty, pink apple-blossom flowers and nice foliage make this drought tolerant plant a lovely hedge or utility plant on dry sites; prune to avoid seed from spreading; flowering stems make nice cutflowers; not to be confused with Melaleuca, Tea-Tree Helene Strybing Tea-Tree flowers Photo courtesy of NetPS Plant Finder Ornamental Features Helene Strybing Tea-Tree is covered in stunning pink flowers along the branches from late spring to early summer. The flowers are excellent for cutting. It has attractive grayish green foliage. The small narrow leaves are highly ornamental and remain grayish green throughout the winter. The fruit is not ornamentally significant. Landscape Attributes Helene Strybing Tea-Tree is a dense multi-stemmed evergreen shrub with an upright spreading habit of growth. Its relatively fine texture sets it apart from other landscape plants with less refined foliage. This is a relatively low maintenance shrub, and should only be pruned after flowering to avoid removing any of the current season's flowers. It has no significant negative characteristics. Helene Strybing Tea-Tree is recommended for the following landscape applications; - Mass Planting - Hedges/Screening Helene Strybing Tea-Tree in bloom - General Garden Use Photo courtesy of NetPS Plant Finder - Container Planting Planting & Growing Helene Strybing Tea-Tree will grow to be about 10 feet tall at maturity, with a spread of 10 feet. It tends to be a little leggy, with a typical clearance of 1 foot from the ground, and is suitable for planting under power lines.
    [Show full text]
  • World Conference on Ecological Restoration
    THE WORLD CONFERENCE ON ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION CONFERENCE ABSTRACT ORGANIZERS Conference Secretariat Conference Scientific Secretariat di&co Pyrenean Institute of Ecology-CSIC. Paseo de Sagasta, 19. Entlo dcha Avd. Montañana, 1005, Apdo. 202 50008 Zaragoza. Spain 50. 080 - Zaragoza. Spain Phone Number: +34 976 211 748, http://www.ipe.csic.es Fax +34 976 212 959) [email protected] Chairperson: Prof. Francisco A. Comín, [email protected] Coordinator: Dr. Mercedes García, [email protected] Society for Ecological Restoration International http://www.ser.org 285 W. 18th St., #1, Tucson, AZ 85701, Ph nº: 520-622-5485, F:520-622-5491 Chair Keith Bowers, [email protected] Treasurer Suzanne Tuttle, [email protected] Steve Patterson, [email protected] Southeast us representative Secretary David Borland, [email protected] Karen rodríguez, [email protected] Western us representative Asia/pacific representative Cindy Roessler, [email protected] Kingsley Dixon, [email protected] Representative-at-large Euro-mediterranean representative George Gann, [email protected] Jim Harris, [email protected] Representative-at-large Latin america/caribbean representative Bill Halvorson, [email protected] Carolina Murcia, [email protected] Representative-at-large Midwest us representative Lucinda Jackson, [email protected] Bonnie Harper-Lore, Bonnie.Harper- Representative-at-large [email protected] Rudy van Diggelen, [email protected] Northeast us/canada representative Representative-at-large John Munro, [email protected] Al Unwin - Niagara Collage, Northwest us representative [email protected] Steve Moddemeyer, [email protected] Representative-at-large Rocky mt./great plains representative Steve Whisenant, [email protected] Executive director: Mary Kay C.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Retardant Plants for the Urban Fringe and Rural Areas
    Flammability Groups Leptospermum scoparium TN Pittosporum undulatum AN X Cucurbita maxima E Pumpkin Morus sp. E Mulberry Manuka, Teatree Sweet Pittosporum Cymbopogon citratus E Lemon Grass Myoporum insulare AN Boobyalla In the following list E denotes an exotic plant, TN a plant Lomandra longifolia TN Saggs Platanus x acerifolia E Plane Tree Cyphomandra betacea E Tamarillo Nerium oleander E Oleander native to Tasmania, AN a plant native to mainland Australia Melaleuca alternifolia AN Paperbark Poa sp. AN Poa Grass Delonix regia E Poinciana Olearia argophylla TN Musk Monstera deliciosa E Monstera Populas sp. E Poplar and X a known environmental weed. Dicksonia antarctica TN Man Fern Photinia glabra var. rubens E Nadina domestica E Sacred Bamboo Quercus robur E English oak Diospryros sp. E Persimmon Chinese Fire Bush or Red-leafed Photinia High Flammability Nicotiana glauca AN Tobacco Bush Spiraea catoniensis E May Eriobotrya japonica E Loquat Pittosporum bicolor TN Cheesewood Pinus elliottii E Tasmannia lanceolata TN Escallonia macrantha E Escallonia These plants have been shown to be highly flammable and Slash or Elliott’s Pine Native Pepper Pteridium esculentum TN Euryops pectinatus E Bracken Fern should not be planted or allowed to remain inside your house’s Pinus patula E Ulex europaeus E X Gorse Yellow Daisy Bush Mexican or Weeping Pine Rhododendron sp. E Rhododendron Building Protection Zone. They should also be avoided in the Viburnum opulus E Guelder Rose Genista monspessulana E X Montpellier Broom Rosa sp. E X Roses, Briars Fuel Modified Zone. Move these plants away from your house Moderate Flammability Koelreuteria paniculata E Salix babylonica E Weeping Willow and replace them with less flammable plants.
    [Show full text]